I suppose you have adopted Lalaeth, and Sir Thoron as definitive, don't you?
And for the note about Faramir and Arminas by Findegil above, have you decided to change, what names of the Earendil's companions.

What had you decided about Gil-galad, I didn't remember to ask you if you had discussed about him (I suppose so). I had adopted the name Rodnor as son of Orodreth (with Finduilas and Haldir), but Orodreth still son of Finarfin.

Gondowe, this thraed is a bit diffrent from other: In general a change needs an agreement of the hole group. Somtimes unisono as seldom as possible by voting. In such questions as mostly collected here it is more a kind of silence agreement to what an expert decided or (since we have the luck in the moment that more than one linguistic expert is activ) two experts found by discussion. Hotly debatable subjects will be discussed in seperate threads.

About the note making Faramir and Arminas companions of Earendil: We will take up the note into the text of the Narn, but we not change any names in The Voyage of Earendil simply because Faramir and Arminas could have been companions of Earendils earlier voyages and not the last one.

Gil-galad's parantag is: Gil-galad son of Orodreth son of Angrod son of Finarfin.
Haldir son of Orodreth is not included in our version. In our oppinion Haldir son of Orodreth was the literary anchester of Handir Lord of Brethil.

About the note making Faramir and Arminas companions of Earendil: We will take up the note into the text of the Narn, but we not change any names in The Voyage of Earendil simply because Faramir and Arminas could have been companions of Earendils earlier voyages and not the last one.

Gil-galad's parantag is: Gil-galad son of Orodreth son of Angrod son of Finarfin.
Haldir son of Orodreth is not included in our version. In our oppinion Haldir son of Orodreth was the literary anchester of Handir Lord of Brethil.

Ok Findegil.
As for the first matter and I said before I think we must leave the three original companions, but I think that in QS is said that they were companions of Eärendil in all the seas, or something like this.

As for the second matter, I'm agree in your opinion but Haldir can be a good reason (as is said in the rejected annal) to the increase of vigilance in the forest of Narog, and the other one is a man so I don't have problems with the names. And the matter of Orodreth brougth me a more difficult rework in the whole text, for that reason I kept him as son of Finarfin.

And the matter of Orodreth brougth me a more difficult rework in the whole text, for that reason I kept him as son of Finarfin.

Indeed, the matter of Orodreth's parentage and children is among the most difficult in the Legendarium. I, at least, did not appreciate just how tricky an issue it is when I first read HoMe - only in actually working on editing the texts in this project did some of the difficulties become apparent. If nothing else, I do now better understand Christopher Tolkien's decision to leave Orodreth the son of Finarfin and Gil-Galad the son of Fingon.

Quote:

I think we must leave the three original companions, but I think that in QS is said that they were companions of Eärendil in all the seas, or something like this.

QS says that they had 'sailed all the seas beside him'. It's not completely clear to me that this means that there was no occasion when Earendil sailed in a ship without them - but even if it does, we could still suppose any of the following:

- On his early voyages, Earendil's companions were Aerandir, Erellont, Falathar, Arminas, and Faramir

- Two of Aerandir, Erellont, and Falathar are merely other names for Arminas and Faramir (Elves have at least a mother-name and a father-name and often additional after-names)

- Arminas and Faramir were indeed with Earendil on his great voyage but either became separated from him or died in the course of his adventures before he and his remaining companions reached Aman

Making Gil-galad (Rodnor) as son of Orodreth not complicate so much the edition, only the add of the concept that he flew with his mother from the attack of Nargothrond. And for example I introduce a passage when Sauron took Minas Tirith that Orodreth flew to Nargothrond with his wife and his sons Finduilas Haldir and the young Rodnor. The name Gil-galad was given by his mother and introduced in the last chapter, previously I omitted the word Gil-galad.

By the way It's also easy (I think, as I did) to take the great history of the dead of Amrod in the burning of the ships. (I think it´s more dramatical for the character of Fëanor), because the participation of the twins were minor in the history and I only omit the references to Amrod ( always "and Amras"), the plurals, and "seven sons" to "six sons", etc.

We have not worked out the earlier chapters of the Beleriandic history, but the Concept to name Gil-galad late and use his name Ereinion would be suitable.

We took Ereinion as valid throughout. So I could not recall when that discussion was held the last time we worked on the "Voyages of Earendil" and I still can't. With a bit of luck Aiwendil has some idea were to search, since I did not find it in the obvious places.

Yes, we have also burned Amrod at Losgar. But we did not change 'seven sons' to 'six sons'. The general change would be 'seven sons' to 'sons'. We thought the is more in accordance with that Feanorians attemp to hush it up, so to speak. When a number was needed we added 'remaining' or a similar phrase before the number.

I must admit to some confusion over Rodnor vs. Ereinion. I thought I recalled a discussion at some point where we decided on 'Ereinion'. But I cannot now find it. Moreover, looking at my old posts in several threads, I realize that I have been inconsistent myself, in one place saying that 'Rodnor' should be emended to 'Ereinion' and in one place the exact opposite.

So it's probably best to make a fresh start in considering the matter. I just re-read the note on Gil-Galad's parentage from XII and, while it's still far from clear, I think the evolution of his name goes something like this:

Late 1930s: In FN II, Gil-Galad (in his first appearance) is the son of Felagund.
Early 1950s: In LQ, Gil-Galad is the son of Felagund.
Early 1950s: In GA, Felagund has no children; a note states that Findor Gil-Galad is the son of Fingon.
c. 1960: In 'A Description of the Island of Numenor' and 'Aldarion and Erendis', Finellach Gil-Galad is a descendant of Finarfin (though the exact relationship is unspecified).
August 1965: In a note on the genealogy of the House of Finwe, Gil-Galad becomes 'Artanaro = Rodnor', the son of Orodreth. The genealogical table itself was then altered to show this.
1968: In 'The Shibboleth of Feanor', he is called 'Ereinion Gil-Galad'.

Somewhat confusingly, CT notes that work on the genealogical table of the House of Finwe continued while the 'Shibboleth' was being written. However, he makes no mention of the name 'Ereinion' in this discussion.

Nonetheless, I think the conclusion to be drawn is more or less clear: at some point between 1965 and 1968, 'Ereinion' replaced 'Artanaro/Rodnor' as Gil-Galad's name. So I think we are correct to adopt 'Ereinion'.

I was revising PoME, and I think that the sentence that made take the decision of Rodnor is That CT said after the last tree of genealogies that he was sure was the last idea of his father, but it's true that remains not clear the matter.
I don't know. Perhaps you are rigth, and the best name is Ereinion.

Yes, Christopher Tolkien's discussion in XII is not completely clear. He says among other things that:

Quote:

In the last of the genealogical tables Artanaro (Rodnor) called Gil-Galad appears

Thus implementing the note of August 1965. The date of this 'last of the genealogical tables' is not clear, but CT says that these genealogies were still being used and altered when the excursus from the 'Shibboleth of Feanor' was written. This would suggest that the use of 'Rodnor' on the genealogical table was contemporary with the use of 'Ereinion' in the text, in which case the question of which came later is very doubtful.

However, he also notes that some corrections were not made to the genealogy - e.g. the genealogy still has the earlier three daughters of Finwe and Indis whereas in the 'Shibboleth' text they had two daughters. So it seems that the 'Shibboleth' excursus represents, at least in some respects, later ideas than the genealogical table.

Nonetheless, CT, after giving a brief schematic of the final situation arrived at in the table, remarks:

Quote:

There can be no doubt that this was my father's last word on the subject

But I think that what he is referring to here is not Gil-Galad's name but his parentage. That is, the last word on Gil-Galad's parentage is that he was Orodreth's son. He certainly does not offer any evidence that the name 'Ereinion' in the 'Shibboleth' was superceded by the name 'Rodnor' in the genealogical table.

Okay, so Ereinion it seems to be. But do we have a Quenya equivalent? Or would we take Aratanáro fro that still? Of course it is not absolutly necessary for him to have a Quenya name, and it not necessary for us to have give one.

I think 'Rodnor' is just the Sindarin translation of 'Artanaro', 'high flame' or 'flame commander'. Cf. Feanaro -> Feanor and Findarato, Angarato -> Finrod, Angrod. So I suppose that if 'Rodnor' was superceded by 'Ereinion' then 'Artanaro' is obselete as well.

That is correct. The only other possibility is that his name was "Artanaro [translated Rodnor] (his father-name) Ereinion (his mother name) Gil-galad (an epesse)."

Araniondo (or something to that effect) would probably be Quenya for Ereinion. My Quenya studies are slightly less fresh in my mind than my Sindarin ones, so you might want to check that before taking my word for it.

I personally would jump at this last idea that Atanaro was his father-name natrually given in Quenya which would have yielded Rodnor in Sindarin. But Ereinion was his mother-name given in Sindarin, since his mother was a Sinda of Dorthonion. Later he got the epesse Gil-galad (natrually in Sindarin, since that was the dayly speech of the time).

Good catch; however, there is an occurrence of 'Bauglir' in the first part of the Narn, and we know that this cannot have been an editorial change by CRT from 'Baugron' because he says in X that 'Baugron' occurs nowhere else. Vq 2 and the first portions of the 'Narn' both date from the late 1950s, so it's difficult to say which is the later occurrence.

This is a somewhat ambiguous case, but my inclination is to take 'Bauglir' as the more conservative choice, since 'Baugron' occurs only once and may have been a mere passing idea. Better, in my view, to be conservative and not accept a late name change than to inadvertantly accept a rejected one.

I'm not so sure. I think this alteration is not a "change," per se, but rather an update. "Bauglir" is a Gnomish name; there is no Sindarin ending "-lir." "Baugron," however, matches then Sindarin masculine ending seen in Sauron and Daeron, from older "-ondo."

I think the Bauglir < Baugron note came from a time where the Professor was updating old names to match the new styles, but he later forgot it and wrote the form he was used to writing. In fact, isn't the Valaquenta the same document which saw the change Tavros < Tauron, which is a change of the same form?

Like many other names, it's difficult and hard to think change one that have so much tradition, perhaps the same professor would think the same. But if linguistically it's updated I think we must change it.

We have changed names even without having a replacement from Tolkien for the reason that their Sindarin was outdated. In this case we have a replacment and even so it only appears once when we deailing with a late change that is so much to be wondered. Even if Tolkien used the name 'Bauglir' at a later occasion (which is not sure) we have precedents of such backward and forward changes before he was used to the changed form.

In short: I think 'Baugron' is to be taken.

I have looked up all occassions were 'Bauglir is used in our text adn the change would not creat any problem in rhyming couples (in aliteration both seem near enough to be exchangeable any way, but Bauglir was never used in that either in our text).

I'm still not convinced about 'Baugron'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's no known reason that 'Bauglir' would be invalid in later Sindarin. We have, anyway, other names ending in '-ir' (e.g. Gwaihir, Amdir).

My reasoning on which to use is more or less this:

If we knew that the relevant part of the Narn was written before Vq 2, then it would be clear that we should take 'Baugron'. On the other hand, I would say that if we knew that it was written after Vq 2, we would have to take 'Bauglir'. Our principles would allow us to disregard a later occurrence of 'Bauglir' only if it was either unworkable (which it isn't) or a clear case of a mere error on Tolkien's part (which I don't think we can establish). So the 'correct' choice comes down to the matter of which was written first, Vq 2 or the relevant passage in the Narn.

We have no way, that I can see, to figure out this question of chronology, and thus no indication which name is 'correct'. In the situation where the question rests on another, undecidable, question, my inclination is to be conservative and go with the name that is well established rather than the one that only appears once.

That's my logic and, as you can see, it leads me to favour 'Bauglir'. I'm not dogmatic about it, though, and I could perhaps be persuaded.

I am a nostalgic and I would like to keep Bauglir.
But Tolkien wrote even one only time Baugron.
We know that the last one is a Sindarin updated.
It's true that the dates are a mistery, but The Narn possibly was written before Vq2 (I say this by memory, but the Narn was started more or less in 1951, and the Second revission of QS about 1958, isn't it?) If is so, seven years to write all the portions of the narn are enough.
So I vote for Baugron.

Sorry to belabour the point, but I don't think we know this. I could be wrong, but I don't know of a reason that 'Bauglir' is not valid in mature Sindarin.

Quote:

It's true that the dates are a mistery, but The Narn possibly was written before Vq2 (I say this by memory, but the Narn was started more or less in 1951, and the Second revission of QS about 1958, isn't it?)

The end of the Narn was written in 1950-1951, but the first part was, I believe, written in the late 1950s.

I'm still not convinced about 'Baugron'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's no known reason that 'Bauglir' would be invalid in later Sindarin. We have, anyway, other names ending in '-ir' (e.g. Gwaihir, Amdir).

Sorry, that doesn't hold up. The ending is not "-ir" in any of those cases. In Gwaihir, the ending is -hir, meaning "lord," thus "Wind-lord." In Amdir, the ending is -dir. This is, by context, a Silvan - not Sindarin - name, so the second element is uncertain, but the first is certainly related to am-, meaning "up, uprising". Finally, as I stated before, the ending in Bauglir is probably -lir, which is unattested in mature Sindarin.

The name comes from the word "baug," meaning "oppression," which is the same root found in Balrog. This shows that it does have an associated consonant "l," so it is possible the ending really is -ir, but I still don't think that gets you out of trouble. Bauglir doesn't look like Sindarin (it looks like a "plural" partitive plural in Quenya, but that is of course absurd), and given later patterns we should expect "Oppressive One" to come out Baugron, just like Daeron (Shadowy One) and Sauron (Putrid One).

I would like to retake conversation proposing {Ered}[Eryd] as is stated by the Professor in Words, Phrases and Passages in various Tongues in TLOTR. He wrote that both plurals are valid in Sindarin but in Silmarillion must use the second.

Hello. I have returned from an absence of years; my interest in this project has recently been renewed. You're still doing such excellent work after all these years. I've not had much of a part aside from offering simple suggestions here and there, which I'm about to do again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Findegil

Gwarestrin. This must stand as there is nothing newer and nothing in published Sindarin corpus that helps in either determining its validity in Sindarin or in creating a possibly more correct Sindarin form. At least gwar- seems still valid as in Amon Gareth/Gwared upon which Gondolin is built. Also valid is the stem TIR- which is contained in –estrin according to the explanation of the name in BoLT 1, Appendix.

I'm afraid this won't work, for phonological reasons if nothing else. The consonant cluster -str- appears to be disallowed in later Sindarin. For example, the terms nothrim 'house' and nothlir 'family line' come from the word nost; when the word is compounded, -st because -th- to avoid the disallowed combinations -str- and -stl-. This process also happens in the very term Gondothrimbar, one of the other names of Gondolin: it is gond + ost + rim + bar. The compound **ostrim is impossible, so it becomes othrim instead. Thus, "Gwarestrin" as such has to be replaced by something else.

We seem to have a few options:

1. The most conservative one is simply to replicate the phonological process discussed above and replace Gwarestrin with Gwarethrin. I would have suggested this, but since Tolkien later replaced Gwareth with Gwared, it might be better to do something else, since the concept of a voiceless consonant at the end of the word has been done away with.

2. Therefore, another option is to use Gwaredrin, or something similar, thus preserving Tolkien's later preference of Gwared over Gwareth. (I am confused about the morphological boundary of this word. Is it Gwares-trin, or Gwarest-rin, or Gwar-estrin, or what?)

3. The third option would be to get rid of the (surely outdated) suffix -trin or whatever it is, along with changing the phonology. I lean toward this, but it would require more conjecture and editorial intrusion. What I'm most tempted to suggest is Minas Gwared, since minas was a common designation of citadels in later Sindarin. It works perfectly with the translation given in the text (Tower of Guard) and preserves the clear connection between the name of the city and the hill it stands on that exists in the original term Gwarestrin. The problem with this one, of course, is that it takes the most liberty with the text and ruins the alliteration of the Seven Names: all the names of Gondolin aside from Loth and Loth-a-laden start with G. Perhaps Gwarmindon could work? Mindon means an isolated hill with a central watch tower, which is essentially what Gondolin was.

EDIT: Okay, after having looked it up in the Fall of Gondolin names list, estrin apparently combines esc and tirin. If we want to be conservative, we could put that extra i back in and call it Gwarestirin. The well-known tir root would become more visible that way, in addition to the word being phonologically correct.

I don't know enough about Sindarin to come up with any other options. But it would seem that something has to be done about this glaring phonological error.

__________________"Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you." —Eru Ilúvatar

Bauglir -> Baugron:
It seems that Tolkien made a kind of standarisation of names late in his life. We already adopted Tauros -> Tauron, in another thread we discuss Maedros -> Maedron. All in all this makes the changes more consistent to me. I would adopt both Maedros -> Maedron and Bauglir -> Baugron

Gwarestrin -> ???
I think it would not be good to produce any new name like 'Minas Gwared' or 'Gwarmindon'. I would rather go with the conservativ approach and use 'Gwarestirin'.

include only in the Valaquenta an allusion of Mairon as the original name of Sauron per Words, Phrases and passages PE17, pg183:
for example:
Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was [Mairon,] that spirit whom the Eldar [later] called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In his beginning...

The reference to the site of Kuivienen is interesting. Of this no more is said in the other tradition than that it lay ‘in the East of the Middle-earth’ (QS $20, preserved throughout the later texts). In AAm Kuivienen lay N.E. of Endon, the midmost point. In the list of names accompanying the Ambarkanta (IV. 241) appears ‘ambar-endya or Middle Earth of which Endor is the midmost point’, and Endor is written over the centre of the middle-land in the Ambarkanta diagrams (IV.243,245) — on the map (IV.248-9) it is marked as a point: ‘Endor Earth-middle’, and here it was corrected to Endon, the form in the present passage of AAm, though later changed back again to Endor (so also on the typescript of AAm my father corrected Endon to Endor here and in $41, p. 80). See IV.254-5.

{Eredlindon}[Ered Lindon] per Sil77. It also corosponds to the spelling in LotR (see e.g. Ered Nimrais).

{Gnome}[Elf] or [Noldo] and {Gnomes}[Elves] or [Noldor]. “Gnomes” was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Elves except where a general reference to Elves would not fit, as in “the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not.” Then use Noldor.

I would like to be more specific. Still the wish for the variation is okay. And as well we should look at specific cases like the given example. But Tolkien later often used ‘Exiles’ as a Name for the Noldor in Beleriand. And I think that is exactly the meaning we would most often need as a replacement for ‘Gnomes’. But he never used it in singular. So I propose:

Quote:

{Gnome}[Elf] or [Noldo] and {Gnomes}[Exiles] or[Elves] or [Noldor]. “Gnomes” was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Exiles except where a general reference to Elves is needed or Exiles would not fit, as in “the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not.” In this last case use Noldor.

And I would like to add three changes. In the course of the material for the chapters 4 we added linguistic stuff. In these we have Tolkien using short hand ‘Q’, ‘PQ’, ‘S’ ‘T’. I think we should expand all this:

Quote:

{PQ}[Primitive Quendian] due to the fact that we are writing narrative and not linguistic essays.

{Q}[Quenya] due to the fact that we are writing narrative and not linguistic essays.

{S}[Sindarin] due to the fact that we are writing narrative and not linguistic essays.

{T}[Telerin] due to the fact that we are writing narrative and not linguistic essays.